CM, as rational and self-disciplined readers can no doubt discern for themselves, your questions together are of that exact same dishonest type as that of the apocryphal nasty corrupt cops asking their target: "So, when did you start beating your wife/husband"

Therefore, judging by your dirty, shallow example, I expect that in the event of the bogus campaign succeeding in changing the marriage act there will indeed be more such interrogation of innocent people in genuine marriage relationships.

If you want "hysterical", go check the record on the private life of one AH, whose first boyfriend was one August "Gustl" Kubizek, whose own autobiographical account described his naked night in hay with the notorious ranting orator-in-waiting.

It appears that AH's fury and resentment derived in no small part from a seething over his serial relationships never being recognised by wider traditional society and religion, especially that of the Judeo-Christian variety then prevailing locally.

See: Machtan, Lothar, The Hidden Hitler, 2001

Raycom,

A reference or three would be handy.

Having ploughed my way through 14 or 15 pages of turgid prose, I am still looking for an answer to the question of what religious freedoms will be threatened by the introduction of same-sex marriage

//I am still looking for an answer to the question of what religious freedoms will be threatened by the introduction of same-sex marriage//

The freedom to believe homosexuality is immoral? No, wait, that doesn't work: until law-enforcement agencies start employing psychics it is impossible to police beliefs or thought-crimes. Thank the lord there are no psychics to be employed.

The freedom to say that homosexuality is immoral? No, wait, that doesn't work either. Speech is pretty free in this country but not entirely free, but any changes to the Marriage Act will not effect the already-existing laws that limit our freedom of speech. That horse has already bolted, for better or for worse.

The freedom for religious ministers not to conduct gay marriages on the grounds of conscience? I think that the freedom is likely to be enshrined in any changes to the Marriage Act. That is how it worked in England, who are culturally, politically and legally similar to Australia.

The freedom for bakers not to decorate cakes? Does this really count as a 'religious' freedom? Not a single one of the Good Books I've studied says anything on the lines of 'Thou shalt not decorate the cakes of thine enemies with words that vex thee'. Maybe I just missed the whole importance of cakes in religious devotion.

I'm stumped. Maybe somebody more religious than myself could detail exactly which of their liberties they think are likely to be curtailed and how this is likely to occur.

Toni Lavis:

“Maybe people write on walls for all sorts of reasons.” Such as? We are talking vandalism and the only reason for vandalism is to cause damage and hopefully to hurt someone else by the damage you cause. Are you saying that everyone should be free to write what they like where they like?

Yuyutsu:

How does your sign prevent old men who are neither Muslim or interested in ‘a bit of fun’ from lighting up? If the real point of the exercise is to stop people from smoking in your restaurant then you would want everyone to stop doing it so there is no need to single out Muslims in particular. It just looks like you have another agenda – to keep Muslims out of your restaurant. You are discriminating on the basis of religion. My point is that the Muslim person can prove your intention to discriminate but he also has to prove that he is indeed Muslim. He can’t do that but he can do everything else within the law to destroy your business and I would encourage him to do so.

Craig Minns:

“Phanto, it doesn't matter what the claimant says, if there is no discrimination, there is no case.”
Well consider the ‘gay cake’ incident. A heterosexual person could have pulled off the same stunt just because he hated Christians. He could have had the same kind of outcome and done the same amount of damage to the bakery because the Commission didn’t even bother to ask his sexual orientation. There would be no discrimination but try telling the baker there was no case

//Such as? We are talking vandalism and the only reason for vandalism is to cause damage and hopefully to hurt someone else by the damage you cause.//

You didn't watch the video, did you?